KHARDAH COMPANY LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an old Rule which came up for hearing before us on a specific assignment by the learned Chief Justice. Khardah Company Limited, the petitioner before us obtained the above Rule seeking relief alternatively under Article 226 of the Constitution and Article 227 thereof. Their prayer is that the orders dated November 24, 1965 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta Division, April 16, 1966 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and Orissa and being set aside the respondents should be directed February 28, 1967 passed by the Central Government to refund the excess excise duty realised from them in respect of their products between the period May 1962 to February 1964. The point involved is a short one, namely, though the respondents do not dispute that there had been such excess realisation whether their liability to refund is barred by limitation prescribed by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. To appreciate and decide the point at issue it would be necessary to refer to certain facts which are set out briefly as follows.

(2.) The petitioner company manufactures D.W. Tarpaulin and D.W. Jute canvas in their jute mills. On and from the midnight of April 23, 1962, Central Excise duty was imposed on the jute manufactures when item 22A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 came into effect. The said item reads as follows :

(3.) The petitioner before us who was manufacturing D.W. Tarpaulin and D.W. Jute canvas thereupon submitted applications in Form A.R. I for passing their products, namely D.W. Tarpaulin on payment of excise duty at the rate of Rs. 125 classifying the product as one coming under entry 22A(2) as aforesaid. The excise authorities passed the said goods accordingly on realisation of excise duty at the said rate.